DOCSLIB.ORG

Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I Digital Object Identifier

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I Digital Object Identifier University of Kentucky UKnowledge KWRRI Research Reports Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute 6-1971 Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/kwrri.rr.40 John A. Dearinger University of Kentucky George M. Woolwine University of Kentucky Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Repository Citation Dearinger, John A. and Woolwine, George M., "Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I" (1971). KWRRI Research Reports. 155. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports/155 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in KWRRI Research Reports by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Research Report Number 40 MEASURING THE INTANGIBLE VALUES OF NATURAL STREAMS, PART I Application of the Uniqueness Concept By John A. Dearinger Principal Investigator and George M. Woolwine Research Assistant University of Kentucky Water Resources Institute Lexington, Kentucky Project Number B-015-KY Agreement Number 14-31-0001-3086 July 1969 - June 1971 June 1971 The work upon which this report is based was supported by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. ·-· - ..~. ,-----,··~--~ ..-, · ~. ··-,.,_ • ~ - -~ -.-.- .· .. • ·~--~---. • •r.~.- .--. ".·-·-~,J~.···_":,:_j--;j-:-J~'-"~~=:.- , _ --·-- --·,..-... - ----~.-.........., ........ ··-~-~-. -------..;-., ..... PREFACE "Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams; Part I, Application of the Uniqueness Concept" (OWRR, B-015-KY) is the first of two reports on a project sponsored by the University of Kentucky Water Resources Institute and supported by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research, as authorized under the Water .lliii! ti Reso•irces Research Act of 1964. Work on Part I was started in September 1969 and was completed in February 1971 by one graduate assistant and five part-time, undergraduate studec1ts. Work on Part II started in April 1970 and is continuing. Completion date fer the entire prcject is June 30, 1972. Impetus for originating the project stemmed from the need for improved planning and decision-making procedures in engineering or develop­ mental projects affecting small natural streams and their watersheds. The major decision-making tool for such projects has long been the Benefit-Cost ratio. This procedure affords little or no consideration of the esthetic values or possible intangible benefits that exist in the affected area. Consequently, small streams and other naturalistic areas are often damaged or destroyed with little or no thought being given to their potential for other uses. ~ It was concluded from this part of the study that; the "uniqueness ratio" could successfully be used to evaluate relative uniqueness within a group of ~.<..:.,· streams, that the uniqueness concept provided a way of objectively comparing the physical a.nd esthetic attributes of various streams and that a measure of unique!less could and should be considered in Benefit-Cost formulations. The methodology that evolved from the stµdy was applied to fifty-eight streams located throughout the state of Kentucky. Reader comments or criticisms on the problem, the described pro­ cedures or the fi!ldings presented should be directed to the principal investigator. .,.c.-... iii ·<,j ;i ~ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to: .'·):.,, Dr, Edward Foree and Dr. Robert A. Lauderdale, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ker.tucky for permission to use and their assistance in using the Civil Engineering sanitation laboratory, Dr. Robert A. Kuehne and Mrs. Chris Sperka, Department of Zoology, University of Kentucky for their ass istar,ce in identifying the invertebrate species collected in the stream kick samples. Mr. Doug Adkins, Mr. Jim Newsom, Mr. Bruce Waespe, and Mr. Charles Scroggin, engineering students, University of Kentucky, for their help in compiling the watershed measurements for the study streams. Mr. Richard Moreno, student assistant, for his assistance in gathering and recording the field data. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service for the use of their facilities and information sources in the preparation of the thesis. Mr. James Coyle, Physical Plant Division, University of Ker.tucky for his help in reproducing the extensive tables and figures. Miss Pat Miller and Miss Nancy Crewe, secretaries for the Water Resources Institute of the University of Kentu:cky, for their help and patience during the reproduction of this publication. .,,..,_._.,. iv •;ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to apply the "uniqueness concept" to the quantification of the intangible values of natural streams. The methodology is based on procedures developed by Luna B. Leopold and Maria 0. Marchand of the U.S. Geological Survey. It involves the evaluation of a set of charac­ teristics or factors for selected stream sites. Each factor is rated for each I site on a numerical scale indicative of the range of possible "values" for that factor. An "uniqueness ratio" (the reciprocal of the number of stream sites ' sharing a given category rating) is then computed for each stream for each factor in the set. Summing the "uniqueness ratios" for all the factors for a ~ given stream yields a "total uniqueness ratio". Those streams with the highest "total uniqueness ratio" are considered to be the most unique. The present study utilized an inventory of fifty-four factors which were evaluated for each study stream. The inventory was divided into five factor groups: Physical Measures, Land Use Measures, Water Quality Measures, Disvalues and Esthetic Impression Measures. Two types of streams were studied: Preference streams and Random C<'.-~{ streams. Sixteen Preference streams were selected from lists of wild, scenic ~ and recreational streams prepared by two state agencies. Forty-two Random streams were selected, using a random number table, from a small watershed ~ inventory prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The sampling process insured that streams be selected from each of the eight physiographic regions of Kentucky. Thus, a total of fifty-eight streams were studied. Conclusions reached were: (1) The "uniqueness ratio" concept can successfully be used to evaluate "relative uniqueness" within a group of streams. (2) Higher values of the "total uniqueness ratio" were obtained for those streams that were in 11 bad11 condition or that had been abused by man's activities than for those streams that were of relatively high quality. v ·,1. ~~ ""',------ ·---:-,- -..,~,..,..,.~·-,·~--·-"::"S'"".~~-·--____ ,'---- ·~- ~-· ' - - ·::,,.:--:_~=-,.,-:~2:£.;PM:$.:S:?5.;~2~.+-~· ~5-,~~::,_.J.~].:i~\-~~~=-~~-:i:~s:~, '-< ~--- ---'~ (3) Some of the streams ranking highest in "total uniqueness" were those situated in higllly developed areas, an indication of the essentially rural nature of the state of Kentucky and the effects of development and urbanization on the environmental quality of small watersheds. (4) Streams located in the Eastern Coal Field generally represented the most natural, rugged, and esthetic streams of the study. (5) The streams located in the Western Coal Field generally represented the most highly exploited and least esthetic streams of the study. ----- vi ·:-~ TABLE OF CONTENTS ..:~; Pf,ge PREFACE iii ·__z.... ABSTRACT v LIST OF TABLES ix il\lt ~ LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi --.~ CHJ,PTER I. IN:~RODUCTION 1 Backgro:md . 1 Benefit-Cost Ratio 2 Related Research 4 Uniqueness Concept . 9 II. PURPOSE AND SCOPE . 12 III. PROCEDURES ·- 19 Watershed Factors 20 Physical . 20 Cultural 26 Transect Factors 28 ~ Physical 28 Water '~uality . 30 Aquatic Habitat 34 Terrestial Habitat 37 Human Use and Interest 37 IV. RESl'.LTS AND ANALYSES 42 Preliminary Work 42 Correlations . 43 Eli mi nations 43 Factor Analysis 46 ......;.~. vii ·,1 ~ '~ .. ~.;. Application of Methodology 56 Analysis - Uniqueness Rankings 5G Preference Streams 62 Random Streams 65 All streams . 69 Graphical Analysis - Uniqueness Groupings. 71 Preference Streams 72 Random Streams. 73 All Streams , 76 v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79 Summary. 79 Conclusions . 80 Recommendations for Further Research 81 REFERENCES, . 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY ------ viii .i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Study streams , . 16 3.1 Original Factors by Groups and Subgroup!! 21 4.1 Original Evaluative Factors - Correlations (r~ IO. 651 ) '. 44 ~ 4.2 Varlmax Factor Loadings - Revised List of Evaluative Factors . 47 4.3 Revised Factor List . 49 4.4 Varimax Factor Loadings - All study Streams . 53 4.5 Preference Streams, Category Ratings on Each Factor 57 4.6 Random streams, Category Ratings on Each Factor. 58 4.7 Number of Streams in Each Category . 59 4. 8 Preference Streams, Uniqueness Ratios . 60 ·'.1 4.9 , Random Streams, Uniqueness Ratios. 61 -" 4.10 Ranking of Preference streams Based on Groups of Factors and All Factors . 63 ~ 4.11
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia Section 303(D) List and Supplements
    West Virginia Section 303(d) List and Supplements uunnamednnamed ttributaryributary ooff Elk-twoElk-two MMileile CCreekreek iinn KKanawhaanawha CCountyounty PPhotohoto bbyy PPatat CCampbellampbell The format of the 2004 Section 303(d) list is organized around the Watershed Management Framework. The fi ve hydrologic groups (A-E) of the framework provide the skeleton. Within each hydrologic group, watersheds are arranged alphabetically and impaired waters are sorted by stream code in their appropriate watershed. The information that follows each impaired stream includes the stream code, the affected water quality criteria, the affected designated use, the general cause of the impairment (where known), the impaired length (or, by default, the entire length), the planned or last possible timing of TMDL development and whether or not the stream was on the 2002 list. The cause of impairment is often unknown or uncertain at the time of listing and is so indicated on the list. The cause(s) of impairment and the contributing sources of pollution will be identifi ed in the TMDL development process. Many waters are listed, by default, for their entire length. In most cases, it is doubtful that the entire length of stream is impaired, but without further data, the exact length of impairment is unknown. Each listed stream will be revisited prior to TMDL development. The additional assessments performed in the pre-TMDL monitoring effort will better defi ne the impaired length. A West Virginia Watershed Management Framework map is provided to assist navigation within the list. A key is also provided to aid in the interpretation of presented information.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Overview
    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Log of the Geology of Frederick County, Virginia W
    Vol. 17 MAY, 1971 No. 2 ROAD LOG OF THE GEOLOGY OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA W. E. Nunan The following road log is a guide to geologic The user of this road log should keep in mind features along or near main roads in Frederick that automobile odometers vary in accuracy. Dis- County, Virginia. Distances and cumulative mile- tances between stops and road intersections ages between places where interesting and repre- should be checked frequently, especially at junc- sentative-lithologies, formational contacts, struc- tions or stream crossings immediately preceding tural features, fossils, and geomorphic features stops. The Frederick County road map of the occur are noted. At least one exposure for nearly Virginia Department of Highways, and the U. S. each formation is included in the log. Brief dis- Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps cussions of the geological features observable at are recommended for use with this road log. the various stops is included in the text. Topographic maps covering Frederick County include Boyce, Capon Bridge, Capon Springs, A comprehensive report of the geology of the Glengary, Gore, Hayfield, Inwood, Middletown, Mountain Falls, Ridge, Stephens City, Stephen- County is presented in "Geology and Mineral Re- son, Wardensville, White Hall, and Winchester. sources of Frederick County" by Charles Butts The route of the road log (Figure 1) shows U. S. and R. S. Edmundson, Bulletin 80 of the Virginia and State Highways and those State Roads trav- Division of Mineral Resources. The publication eled or needed for reference at intersections. has a 1:62,500 scale geologic map in color, which Pertinent place names, streams, and railroad is available from the Division for $4.00 plus sales crossings are indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • White Hall DRAFT
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OPEN-FILE REPORT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF 2010-1265 SEA LEVEL SEA CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS WHITE HALL Qa QUATERNARY Alluvium (Holocene and Pleistocene?)—Clay, silt, and lesser sand with angular to QUADRANGLE 1000 Qa 1000 2000 18 FEET W. VA. 70 48 subrounded clasts, derived from local bedrock. Pebble-size (4–64 mm) fragments of 20 27 23 67 Unconformity sandstone, siltstone, quartzite and weathered shale are scattered throughout the deposits. W.VA. SM VA. 83 Dm 35 62 35 Winchester 21 34 In area underlain by the Martinsburg Formation, consists of light-olive-gray, yellowish- 17 72 57 78 B 62 \ 72 61 t TERTIARY ? gray, and pale-yellowish-orange, well-bedded to crudely bedded, planar-bedded clayey 27 84 _O 73 VIRGINIA 25 silt, with weathered shale fragments as much as an inch long. Thickness as much as 40 ft 75 25 Unconformity 30 Qa DSls 61 ANTICLINORIUM 30 ZONE 31 Terrace deposits (Tertiary?)—Rounded to subrounded, highly weathered cobbles, sand, MAP LOCATION Dm b t PERMIAN ? silt, and clay exposed along State Route 681 near the confluence of Isaacs Creek and Back PROVINCE Z_ Swbm Strasburg 70 30 FAULT Skr Creek 73 70 FORD St SD Dh Om SYNCLINORIUM 33 22 60 68 Breccia (Permian?)—Brecciated massive dolomite or dolomitized limestone; may be 42 Df b 28 82 Df silicified in places and contain black stringers or staining (Fe-Mn oxide?). Exposures Ojo Dfu 25 36 83 Df 29 CREEK occur in fields east of Frog Hollow and along the axis of the Welltown syncline FAULT PROVINCE 18 Dfl Dfu MOUNTAIN 16 18 Db BAILEY 31 _O BRANCH Dmch Dmc Dmch Dm Df Hampshire Formation (Upper Devonian)—Sandstone, mudstone, siltstone, and minor 19 Dh Dh shale.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for Dam Modifications on the West Fork River Harrison County, West Virginia
    Final Environmental Assessment for Dam Modifications on the West Fork River Harrison County, West Virginia REPORT PREPARED BY: USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE IN COOPERATION WITH U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE: City of Clarksburg, WV - Clarksburg Water Board November 2010 November 2010 2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DAM MODIFICATIONS ON THE WEST FORK RIVER Harrison County, West Virginia West Virginia Second Congressional District Responsible Federal Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Local Sponsor: Clarksburg Water Board Cooperating Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Service Project Location: Harrison County, West Virginia For More Information: State Conservationist USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service 75 High Street, Room 301 Morgantown, WV 26505 Phone: (304) 284-7540 Fax: (304) 284-4839 or Project Leader West Virginia Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, WV 26241 Phone: 304 636 6586 Fax: (304) 636 7824 Environmental Assessment Designation: FINAL Abstract: This Final Environmental Assessment describes the anticipated effects of removing three obsolete run- of-the-river water supply dams and modification of a fourth dam with an aquatic life passage structure in the West Fork River. This project proposes to restore, to the greatest extent possible, the aquatic and ecological integrity of at least forty miles of the West Fork River and many more miles of adjoining tributaries. This project has the potential to restore more suitable habitat for as many as twenty-five species of freshwater mussels including two federally listed species. Liability to the dam’s owners, the Clarksburg Water Board, will be substantially reduced with implementation of the recommended alternative.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Loads for the West Fork River Watershed, West Virginia
    Total Maximum Daily Loads for the West Fork River Watershed, West Virginia USEPA Approved July 2014 On the cover: Photos provided by WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management West Fork River Watershed: TMDL Report CONTENTS Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions................................................................................ iv Executive Summary................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 Report Format....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads...................................................................................1 2.2 Water Quality Standards..........................................................................................4 3.0 Watershed Description and Data Inventory....................................................................5 3.1 Watershed Description.............................................................................................5 3.2 Data Inventory .........................................................................................................7 3.3 Impaired Waterbodies..............................................................................................9 4.0 Biological Impairment and Stressor Identification ......................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • USEPA Approved IR 303D Co
    2016 West Virginia Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Prepared to fulfill the requirements of Section 303(d) and 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act and Chapter 22, Article 11, Section 28 of the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act for the period of July 2014 through June 2016. Prepared by the Division of Water and Waste Management Jim Justice Governor Austin Caperton Cabinet Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Scott G. Mandirola Director Division of Water and Waste Management 2016 WV Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Water Quality Standards ............................................................................................ 2 3.0 Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment ................................................................. 4 3.1 Streams and Rivers ......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Probabilistic (Random) Sampling ...................................................................................... 5 3.3 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network ....................................................................... 5 3.4 Targeted Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7 3.5 Pre-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development Monitoring ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit C 190284
    190284 Exhibit C 190284 Exhibit C- U.S.G.S. HUC 12 Watersheds that contain and/or are immediately adjoining a U.S. EPA 303(d) water body impaired by PCBs States HUC12 Name AL,GA,TN 060200011204 Lower Nickajack Lake-Tennessee River AL 031501051003 Weiss Lake-Coosa River AL 031501060203 Big Cove Creek AL 031501060204 Turkey Town Creek AL 031501060309 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Resources of Frederick County
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF FREDERICK COUNTY Charles Butts and Raymond S. Edmundson BULLETIN 80 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES James L. Calver Commissioner ol Mineral Resources and State Geologisl CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGINIA | 966 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF FREDERICK COUNTY Charles Butts and "'"Raymond S. Edmundson BULLETIN 80 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES James L. Calver Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA I 966 Couuorwnlr-trr or VnctNrl Dnp,llruBxt oF PuRctrAsEs eto Suppr-v Rrcrrruorqo 1966 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond, Virginia MenvrN M. Surrronr,ltNo, Director A. S. Recrrat, J*., Executiue Assistant BOARD Canr,rsr,e H. HunrBr,srNe, Williamsburg, Chairman ANonnw A. Fenr,ov, Danville, Vice-Chairman Joe P. Gn Ls, Roanoke Ar,r,eN M. HBvwenp, Newport News Cr,euor A. Ju,ssue, Jn., Charlottesville Genraxo E. Moss, Chase City Ennu,sr L. Surrrr, Grundy JorrN S. TrronxroN, Culpeper Ancrrrr L. WENnrcH, Hopewell CONTENTS Pecr Abstract 1 qrannage . 5 5 6 9 .'..'....',....'..',.',......''..'.'..'...'.'..'....,....-'.....'..'.......'.....'.'.....'..'.''..'.-.'.',.. l ? 12 o1 2r 24 26 28 Lincolnshire formation ,o r{unourgEdinburg rormatlonformation --. ... ... ....... ......... ......... .. .................. 30 Oranda formation ................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties
    Biological and Water Quality Study of Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties Mackletree Run RM 0.4, in Shawnee State Forest Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Division of Surface Water Assessment and Modeling Section August 2020 (Revised April 2021) TMDL DEVELOPMENT | AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries August 2020 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties, Ohio (Sample Years 2013‐2017) August 2020 Ohio EPA Report DSW/AMS 2016‐EAGLE‐2 Prepared by: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216‐1049 Division of Surface Water Southwest District Office 401 E. Fifth St. Dayton, Ohio 45402 Ecological Assessment Section Groveport Field Office 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 Mike DeWine, Governor State of Ohio Laurie A. Stevenson, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries August 2020 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Place Names Directory: Southern Ohio
    STATE OF OHIO Richard F. Celeste, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Joseph J. Sommer, Director DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Horace R. Collins, Chief Information Circular No. 53 Florida Bureau ot Geo gy Ubt~ 903 w. Tennessee Street l'a\\a~' Florida 323041 ·-.. PLACE NAMES DIRECTORY: SOUTHERN OHIO compiled by Madge R. Fitak Columbus 1986 ... OD~ SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL STAFF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Horace R. Collins, MS, Stal.e Geologist and Division Chf,ef Robert G. Van Horn, MS, Geologist and Assistant Chf,ef Barbara J. Adams, Administrative Secretary James M. Miller, BA, Fiscal Administrator REGIONAL GEOLOGY GEOCHEMISTRY LABORATORY Dennis N. Hull, MS, Goo/,ogist and Section Head David A Stith, MS, Geologist and Section Head Michael P. Angle, MS, Goo/,ogist George Botoman, MS, Geologist C. Scott Brockman, MS, Geologist Norman F. Knapp, PhD, Chemist Richard W. Carlton, PhD, Geologist Michael R. Caudill, BS, Goo/,ogist Douglas L. Crowell, MS, Geologist LAKE ERIE Kim E. Daniels, BS, Geologist Richard M. DeLong, MS, Geologist Rene L. Fernandez, MS, Geologist Jonathan A Fuller, MS, Geologist Michael C. Hansen, MS, Geologist Donald E. Guy, Jr., MS, Goologi,st Glenn E. Larsen, MS, Geologist Carl L. Hopfinger, MS, Geology Technician Jack A Leow, BS, Geologist Dale L. Liebenthal, Research Vessel Operator Richard R. Pavey, MS, Geologist Mary Lou McGurk, Typist Katherine M. Peterson, BS, Geologist Ronald G. Rea, BS, Geologist Clark Scheerens, L. MS, Geologist TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS Gregory A Schumacher, MS, Geologist Douglas L. Shrake, BS, Geologist Ernie R. Slucher, BA, Geologist Philip J. Celnar, BFA, Cartographer and Secti.on Head Edward Mac Swinford, MS, Geologist Cartography Joel D.
    [Show full text]